Category talk:Stick Ranger
Using categories Should we really put all the pages from the three subcategories Category:Stick Ranger enemies, Category:Stick Ranger items and Category:Stick Ranger weapons also into the main category Category:Stick Ranger ? First, this is more work, second, it is much less clearly arranged. --Justme2 17:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Hmm i think we shoudl not put elements from subcategory in main category. Myven 18:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC) * Because of the nature of this wiki (it is shared with Powder Game and other Dan-Ball games), we have to label ALL articles related to Stick Ranger under this category. I've looked at the PG pages, a lot of articles have been labelled with "Powder Game" as well. --bewnt 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC) ** Why? I don't get it. Why do we have to uses the category "Stick Ranger", and why is a category "Stick Ranger blahblahblah" not enough. First: It's clearly visible that a page labeled with "Stick Ranger blahblahblah" belongs to Stick Ranger. Second, if you visit the category "Stick Ranger blahblahblah" itself, you will also see this belongs to the category "Stick Ranger". And if you are comming from the other side and you visit category "Stick Ranger" you see that there is a bunch of "Stick Ranger blahblahblah" subcategories right at the top. Everything which is labeled with category "Stick Ranger blahblahblah" therefore automatically belongs to "Stick Ranger". I it is much more clear, and well organized if we only use the subcategories for labeling. --Justme2 12:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC) ** I like to refer to en.wikipedia.org to their guidelines about categories. They think you should not place stuff in both a category and its subcategory ("e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software"). They only tell about two exeptions. One is only true for pages with are a category at the same time like weapon, item, stage or enemy, and the other one is based on a relevance we don't have here. Well, we are not Wikipedia, so we can do what we want, but I share their point of view. --Justme2 12:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC) *** I see. Alright then, we can take the labels of Stick Ranger off all articles but the subcategories. I hope we can place every single article into at least one subcategory though. On a totally irrelevant note, do we have to categorise redirect pages? --bewnt 12:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) **** I have already done it for Category:Stick Ranger items. And it looks nice, and gives some overview. Well, I think we should do it. I don't think it's a problem that nearly all these links go to only four different pages. But it takes some time to create it. Lot's of redirection pages (e.g. for weapons) also don't even exist. I would do it some time, but I don't think there is much urge to do it now and quickly. Real content is currently more important. --Justme2 13:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Others category Should we make an Others category, for stuff that don't fit into the other seven? I don't like stuff lying around in the main Stick Ranger category, though by making an others category it might just add confusion. Thoughts, opinions? --bewnt 05:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC) : No, I don't think this is useful. It would be only to hide stuff, and I don't see any benefit from this. You would create a complety strange defined category, and the stuff in it doesn't have anything in common with each other at all, except for "This categroy contains articles and media about Stick Ranger, which doesn't fit in any of the other categories.". And I think this is really a bad characteristic for creating a category on it. I also don't think the overview at the main category suffers from this. --Justme2 14:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC) :: Looks like a very compelling argument there. No others category it is. --bewnt 15:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)